Lifeguard fired for doing his job

macrumors Core

MIAMI  A day at the beach usually comes with the expectation that if someone is drowning, a lifeguard will swing into action and come to the rescue.

The reason was that as Mr. Lopez raced down the beach about a quarter-mile to comply with the big rule  rescuing a swimmer  he failed to follow a small rule. He breached protocol by running to an area outside his beach zone without waiting for his supervisor to arrive to cover his station, posing a potential liability problem.

The firing, which took place Monday, set off a furor on social media. The private company that runs the lifeguard operation in Hallandale Beach  an unusual arrangement that does not exist in most Florida cities  was pilloried for letting Mr. Lopez go for basically doing his job. On Thursday, the company, Jeff Ellis Management, offered him his job back.

But Mr. Lopez, soured a bit by the experience, said he did not want it now.

Someone was in danger, explained Mr. Lopez, 21, who lives in Davie, in Broward County, and started his lifeguard job four months ago. I wasnt going to choose my job over someone in danger. My job is to help people in distress. It was a moronic rule in my opinion that they set up. I understand the liability issues, but. ...

Mr. Lopez said he was aware of the rule before he set off running but chose to disregard it, fearing that the person would drown in the few minutes that he waited for his supervisor to show up.

As it turned out, the flailing swimmer was being rescued by two beachgoers who pulled him out of the water on a boogie board. Mr. Lopez said that he waded into ankle-deep water and helped carry the man off the board. Then he turned the man on his side.

He was conscious and breathing but was coughing up water and foam, added Mr. Lopez, who said a nurse jumped in to help. He looked pale and disoriented.

Soon after, emergency medical technicians arrived and took the man to a hospital. Mr. Lopez was told to file his report on the incident. After he did so, he was fired by his supervisor, he said.

Three lifeguards quit in solidarity after the firing, including his younger brother, Mr. Lopez said. The next day two others were fired, he added.

They had asked them if they would do the same thing I did, and they said they would, Mr. Lopez said.

Jeff Ellis, the owner of the company that patrols that stretch of Hallandale Beach, said that all those lifeguards would be reinstated if they chose to come back.

The change of heart, Mr. Ellis said, came after his preliminary investigation concluded that no other swimmers were put at risk after Mr. Lopez left his station. A fellow lifeguard who was down the beach began to supervise Mr. Lopezs portion of beach.

Mr. Ellis said that his contract with the city of Hallandale Beach provides that four lifeguards in three stands watch over a length of beach about the size of two football fields. The rest of the beach is designated as unprotected.

The lifeguards are allowed to rescue people outside those boundaries so long as they can see the distressed swimmer. Otherwise, they are supposed to call the manager. Usually, 911 would be called to respond in those cases.

If someone leaves a station unattended, Mr. Ellis said, we are then compromising the safety of swimmers in our zone.

Privatizing lifeguard duties is unusual in Florida. Hallandale Beach contracted out the job to his company in 2003 to save money, Mr. Ellis said. His contract expires in October; he said he had not decided whether to bid again.

macrumors 603

The reason was that as Mr. Lopez raced down the beach about a quarter-mile to comply with the big rule  rescuing a swimmer  he failed to follow a small rule. He breached protocol by running to an area outside his beach zone without waiting for his supervisor to arrive to cover his station, posing a potential liability problem.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that's not a "small rule." If someone drowns in his designated area because he's off in an area outside where he's supposed to be working, that's a HUGE problem.

Kudos to the guy for rescuing someone, but I can understand his employer's position here.

thread startermacrumors Core

Sorry, that's not a "small rule." If someone drowns in his designated area because he's off in an area outside where he's supposed to be working, that's a HUGE problem.

Kudos to the guy for rescuing someone, but I can understand his employer's position here.

Click to expand...

The fact that they privatized lifeguards is stupid to begin with. A lifeguard's job should be save a person first ask questions later. Had that person died because the lifeguard stayed in his "area" what would the consequences have been.

macrumors 6502

The fact that they privatized lifeguards is stupid to begin with. A lifeguard's job should be save a person first ask questions later. Had that person died because the lifeguard stayed in his "area" what would the consequences have been.

I can speak as someone who made a career of not only lifeguarding, but also teaching swimming and teaching, examining, and certifying people in lifeguarding, boating, use of AED, use of respiratory support, and first aid. Aquatics was my both my life and my passion.

That being said there are, of course, different standards in different jurisdictions but there are many common threads, one being that a lifeguard never leaves their zone unattended. Never. One's primary responsibility is to the people in one's zone--be they bathers, spectators, people walking by, whatever. A lifeguard's secondary responsibility is to cover another guard's zone if needed. The article does state that another guard did cover Mr Lopez' zone, and if that cover was called for and a proper confirmation received before Mr Lopez acted then the only thing he did wrong was not following an administrative rule, namely he didn't wait for a supervisor.

If, however, he left his zone unattended--even for a second--then he should face disciplinary action. I wouldn't go so far as termination, but, were he one of my employees, he would at least get a lecture and possibly some remedial work. (And, FWIW, if one of my candidates did the same thing they would be on track to fail the course. A lifeguard never leaves his zone unattended.)

What are the chances of someone drowning in your zone while you're saving someone in the next zone?

The chances of 2 separate drownings at the same time so close together is probably extremely low. I think it was a risk worth taking and he did a good job.

Click to expand...

"Drowning" means a fatality, so the odds are usually low that this will happen in two zones simultaneously. However, what are the odds that someone could have a near-drowning, become a distressed swimmer, become an injured swimmer, get heat stroke, have a seizure, have a heart attack, or any of the other situations that can also become fatal? Those are very good odds at a public beach on a hot summer's day.

macrumors 604

I can speak as someone who made a career of not only lifeguarding, but also teaching swimming and teaching, examining, and certifying people in lifeguarding, boating, use of AED, use of respiratory support, and first aid. Aquatics was my both my life and my passion.

That being said there are, of course, different standards in different jurisdictions but there are many common threads, one being that a lifeguard never leaves their zone unattended. Never. One's primary responsibility is to the people in one's zone--be they bathers, spectators, people walking by, whatever. A lifeguard's secondary responsibility is to cover another guard's zone if needed. The article does state that another guard did cover Mr Lopez' zone, and if that cover was called for and a proper confirmation received before Mr Lopez acted then the only thing he did wrong was not following an administrative rule, namely he didn't wait for a supervisor.

If, however, he left his zone unattended--even for a second--then he should face disciplinary action. I wouldn't go so far as termination, but, were he one of my employees, he would at least get a lecture and possibly some remedial work. (And, FWIW, if one of my candidates did the same thing they would be on track to fail the course. A lifeguard never leaves his zone unattended.)

"Drowning" means a fatality, so the odds are usually low that this will happen in two zones simultaneously. However, what are the odds that someone could have a near-drowning, become a distressed swimmer, become an injured swimmer, get heat stroke, have a seizure, have a heart attack, or any of the other situations that can also become fatal? Those are very good odds at a public beach on a hot summer's day.

Click to expand...

I disagree with you completely. If someone is in distress, screw zones. Rescue the person and give them a second chance at life.

How can anyone argue against that? You'd be highly upset if your child died because a lifeguard stayed in his zone when he could have helped.

As others said, the chances of someone having trouble in the lifeguards zone at the exact same time is insanely slim. It sounds like a little common sense needs injected into the lifeguarding community.

macrumors 6502

I disagree with you completely. If someone is in distress, screw zones. Rescue the person and give them a second chance at life.

How can anyone argue against that? You'd be highly upset if your child died because a lifeguard stayed in his zone when he could have helped.

Click to expand...

I'd be even more upset if my child died because a lifeguard was not doing her job, that is, if she left her zone.

It's easy to argue against what you (and others) suggest. A lifeguard should never leave his zone. In fact, in many (I'd even go so far as to say most) jurisdictions in the Western world a lifeguard can be charged criminally if someone gets hurt and the lifeguard fails to act; if the lifeguard fails to act because he was not there to act he would probably face prison if someone died.

Quote

As others said, the chances of someone having trouble in the lifeguards zone at the exact same time is insanely slim.

Click to expand...

And as I said--as a person who has actually been a certified lifeguard working full time, year round, is certified to train, examine, and certify new lifeguards, has held and taught all four of Canada's NLS options (Pool, Water park, Surf, Waterfront), has competed in national and Commonwealth lifeguard competitions, and has contributed to lifeguarding texts--the chances of simultaneously having someone else in trouble on a public beach are quite high, especially on a hot summer's day.

thread startermacrumors Core

It's easy to argue against what you (and others) suggest. A lifeguard should never leave his zone. In fact, in many (I'd even go so far as to say most) jurisdictions in the Western world a lifeguard can be charged criminally if someone gets hurt and the lifeguard fails to act; if the lifeguard fails to act because he was not there to act he would probably face prison if someone died.

Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself. First you say a lifeguard should do nothing than said they could be arrested for doing nothing.

macrumors 603

You just contradicted yourself. First you say a lifeguard should do nothing than said they could be arrested for doing nothing.

Click to expand...

He didn't contradict himself.

If someone drowns in an area the lifeguard was not hired to protect, and indeed was forbidden from protecting, he has a very defensible legal position against a lawsuit from the deceased's surviving family.

If someone drowns in an area the lifeguard was hired to protect but the lifeguard was not there protecting it, it's dereliction of duty and very firm grounds for a lawsuit.

Again, I understand that he saved someone's life, and congratulations to him and a pat on the back and everything - but he left his employer exposed to a potential lawsuit. From the employer's perspective, that's huge.

macrumors 604

I'd be even more upset if my child died because a lifeguard was not doing her job, that is, if she left her zone.

It's easy to argue against what you (and others) suggest. A lifeguard should never leave his zone. In fact, in many (I'd even go so far as to say most) jurisdictions in the Western world a lifeguard can be charged criminally if someone gets hurt and the lifeguard fails to act; if the lifeguard fails to act because he was not there to act he would probably face prison if someone died.

And as I said--as a person who has actually been a certified lifeguard working full time, year round, is certified to train, examine, and certify new lifeguards, has held and taught all four of Canada's NLS options (Pool, Water park, Surf, Waterfront), has competed in national and Commonwealth lifeguard competitions, and has contributed to lifeguarding texts--the chances of simultaneously having someone else in trouble on a public beach are quite high, especially on a hot summer's day.

Click to expand...

You can twist it how you want but morally you're wrong, the life guard was right and kudos to him for ignoring a silly rule and helping someone in need.

Again, if the person in trouble was your kid I highly doubt you'd get mad that he "left his zone".

macrumors Penryn

I'd be even more upset if my child died because a lifeguard was not doing her job, that is, if she left her zone.

It's easy to argue against what you (and others) suggest. A lifeguard should never leave his zone. In fact, in many (I'd even go so far as to say most) jurisdictions in the Western world a lifeguard can be charged criminally if someone gets hurt and the lifeguard fails to act; if the lifeguard fails to act because he was not there to act he would probably face prison if someone died.

And as I said--as a person who has actually been a certified lifeguard working full time, year round, is certified to train, examine, and certify new lifeguards, has held and taught all four of Canada's NLS options (Pool, Water park, Surf, Waterfront), has competed in national and Commonwealth lifeguard competitions, and has contributed to lifeguarding texts--the chances of simultaneously having someone else in trouble on a public beach are quite high, especially on a hot summer's day.

Click to expand...

You're almost certainly correct about what is considered "proper" conduct for a lifeguard, as it's your profession, not mine.

That does not mean I can't find the reasoning slightly reprehensible. Laws and lawsuits usually do not have anything to do with morals and humanity. That wasn't meant to be a criticism of you, or lifeguards as people.

macrumors Core

i understand the need to make sure that if a lifeguard is leaving their zone that it needs to be covered. the article states that another lifeguard had indeed covered his zone, although it is vague on specifics, and he helped someone in distress out. However, the company's policy was wrong imo. it seems idiotic to have to wait for a supervisor who could be anywhere in the vicinity before proceeding. hire more lifeguards to patrol then for just this sort of instance.

macrumors 68020

i understand the need to make sure that if a lifeguard is leaving their zone that it needs to be covered. the article states that another lifeguard had indeed covered his zone, although it is vague on specifics, and he helped someone in distress out. However, the company's policy was wrong imo. it seems idiotic to have to wait for a supervisor who could be anywhere in the vicinity before proceeding. hire more lifeguards to patrol then for just this sort of instance.

Click to expand...

He called on his radio for backup since he was leaving his chair. That's SOP, leave the chair for any reason, call for backup. Backup was either on its way or he waited for them to get there before he left, I forgot exactly which. (This from an interview I saw with him last night)

What's the question? Why wasn't it covered or something else? If its: why wasn't it covered: it was part of the "unprotected" area of the beach. You know, the swim at your own risk part. Most beaches I've been to have them. too expensive I guess to cover the whole shore.

macrumors P6

What's the question? Why wasn't it covered or something else? If its: why wasn't it covered: it was part of the "unprotected" area of the beach. You know, the swim at your own risk part. Most beaches I've been to have them. too expensive I guess to cover the whole shore.

macrumors 68020

The truth is, both parties acted correctly. The lifeguard did the proper, moral thing: tried to help a fellow human being. But the company has rules that has to be followed or more people can get hurt. They had to fire him. Funny thing is he was much more accepting of this then people in this thread.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.